Also I was under the impression, if we go back to our traditional sources, that detriment was one of the most essentially debilitating a planet could be.

I'm a little pressed for time just now, but as I recall there is only slight evidence in the Greek material of what we now call detriment being considered a debility. It is wholly absent from pre-Islamic Sanskrit sources, and also from several medieval Arabic sources. I believe Ben Dykes has a short discussion of this in his preface to Works of Sahl and Masha'allah. The signs (and degrees) of fall, on the other hand, are prominent throughout.

Quote:

What's useful to take away from this is, if I go by what you're saying, I should be able to interpret my own chart (or others) using the methods I'm familiar with with just precessed signs - so not have to 'relearn' what the signs mean.

Paul, I don't believe we can discuss the sidereal zodiac to any extent without including India's astrology. Here in the United States there seems to be complete harmony between tropical and Jyotish astrologers. Many western astrologers who have learned Jyotish routinely combine the two in order to communicate more effectively with clients.

There is no discussion of seasonal differences in philosophy or tropical vs. sidereal conflict. No one cares! The medieval Renaissance of astrology seems to have taken root mainly in Europe, though Benjamin Dykes makes his home in the United States. Personally I had never given thought to the concept of the tropical zodiac being based on seasonal philosophy. I've simply studied the signs as they operate in the horoscopes of individuals.

Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

I find it a little odd that you haven't given any thought to seasonal associations. Leo for example, is widely described as warm and generous. Did it not occur to you that one reason for this could be the Sun being warm and generous in August in the Hellensitic world? There may be sidereal perspectives here, you would have thought so, but nevertheless it's a curio for someone who seems to have been interested in Horoscopy for some time to have not bumped into something so fundamental to these types of discussions ?

You say that "there is little guess work involved in choosing the probable zodiacal rulers of Taurus and Gemini, the two signs still without their primary domicile lords"

What does this mean? Surely Venus and Mercury respectively rule those signs. Is this a sidereal statement as you understand it? What's equally troubling is that in an earlier paragraph you said "If you wanted to know about Virgo, you studied Mercury in the horoscope." so if you wanted to know about Taurus or Gemini, what do you study if it has no ruler?

All the above is given in a context where you accept that "Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn have had their homes in the zodiac since Hellenistic times", but of course in the same said hellenistic times Mercury was domicile (at home) in Gemini and Venus in Taurus.

"Unlike the system of planetary lords, at first glance the relationship of exalted planets to signs does not seem to follow any astrological pattern."

Actually there is a pattern. All the diurnal planets are configured to their exalted signs by a trine from their domicile signs, and all the nocturnal ones by a sextile. With the exception of Mercury which is neither diurnal/nocturnal nor masculine or feminine, but instead gains exaltation in the sign that is oriental of the sun where it takes upon masculine gender.

"Astrologers have been consistent in assigning Uranus to Aquarius and Neptune to Pisces, but have broken the pattern with Pluto, assigning it to Scorpio rather than to Aries. This assignment is partly due to the observed nature of Tropical Scorpio"

Actually I believe that a German astrologer simply stated and published that it was the domicile ruler of Scorpio and its popularity is what made it so. I think actually a group of astrologers gathered together to assign it to Aries but this guy beat them to it.

"Taurus and Gemini don't have their own domicile lords as yet, but their lords would be exalted in Aquarius and Leo respectively. These two signs had no exalted planets in the ancient system."

But neither did Sagittarius or Scorpio, so why Aquarius or Leo?

"It's intriguing that this ancient Zoroastrian text assigns the remote Artemis to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces, with which all modern astrologers agree, and Pluto to Aries, the suggested sidereal co-lord of Aries"

I struggle to comprehend any zoroastrian text saying that "Sagittarius: Hera [the faithful wife] with Zeus " as these gods are all greek.

Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

Hi Nixx. You posed this question to Therese, but if I may interject - I was just reading an old post on the ACT forum in which the late Robert Blaschke described how he combines tropical and sidereal zodiacs. Here's the quote:

I am primarily a Tropical astrologer, but I also use Western Sidereal astrology in relationship analysis. I have developed a "Cross-Zodiac" synastry technique wherein the tropical nativity of one individual is compared to the sidereal nativity of the second person. I have found that the completion of karma between two souls can be perceived using this method (when the Tropical planet of one conjoins the Sidereal angle of the other, or vice versa).

Blaschke was an innovator and had a very idiosyncratic approach to delineation. He published an article on his website describing his tropical-sidereal approach in detail, but following his death the site was suspended and I've not been able to find the article elsewhere.

I am primarily a Tropical astrologer, but I also use Western Sidereal astrology in relationship analysis. I have developed a "Cross-Zodiac" synastry technique wherein the tropical nativity of one individual is compared to the sidereal nativity of the second person. I have found that the completion of karma between two souls can be perceived using this method (when the Tropical planet of one conjoins the Sidereal angle of the other, or vice versa).

Blaschke was an innovator and had a very idiosyncratic approach to delineation. He published an article on his website describing his tropical-sidereal approach in detail, but following his death the site was suspended and I've not been able to find the article elsewhere.

I recall reading an article by him about how different zodiacs described, as he saw it, different levels of 'consciousness' or something like this. Perhaps karmic realities describes it better?

I don't recall finding a way of relating to his ideas in this respect. I doubt Sidereal astrologers would have been all that smitten as Blaschke appeared to side with the Tropical Schema as the one that talked about our more worldly psychological existence.

Thanks. I wonder how much his [James Eshelman's] astrology has been shaped and influenced by Thelema though.

Jim had published his books before his involvement with Thelema, and I note on his current web site that he's quoting from his books.

Quote:

Also I note that he too says "The Tropical zodiac is a fiction. It simply doesn’t exist, except in the minds of its proponents."

Then he is staying with what I recall was Fagan's view. Here is probably the main reason that Fagan's western sidereal system caught on with so few astrologers. Astrologers don't want to be told that the zodiac they're using is a fiction. That's a pretty strong statement.

Quote:

But do the Indian astrology take Mars in Libra, without reception for example, as being a debility like we do in western tropical astrology?

No, Mars in Libra isn't considered to be a debility.

Quote:

This is why I wanted to examine the issue with reference to the hellensitic astrologers as they're writing in a time when the zodiacs were aligned, so we can see any changes by simply comparing against them.

Rupert Gleadow in Your Character in the Zodiac has made a good beginning in investigating the Hellenistic texts. But to be thorough, this is a big job that should be a group effort. This effort could take up several university level courses!

Quote:

Therese: This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs.

Quote:

What do you mean be early? Do you mean from Fagan's era onwards? Or do you mean the hellenistic astrologers?

From Fagan's era onwards.

Quote:

You're saying that the characteristics belong to the sidereal zodiac and tropical astrologers simply noted them and didn't realise they were sidereal in origin. That means the tropical zodiac is incorrect and is actually sidereal.

That may be my primary perspective at this time, but I don't make statements like that without providing a lot of evidence. Also the zodiac is made up of various harmonics, and as yet we haven't isolated the initial point of the harmonics._________________http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

I don't believe the zodiacs can be successfully combined. I think it muddies the waters. But a number of western Jyotish astrologers do discuss tropical sun signs with their clients if the client is more comfortable with that zodiac. Komilla Sutton in her Indian Astrology combines the nakshatras with tropical sun signs and their rulerships. To me, this makes no sense and is incorrectly combining symbolism. It may have been the author's purpose to interest more readers in Indian's nakshatras._________________http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

You say that "there is little guess work involved in choosing the probable zodiacal rulers of Taurus and Gemini, the two signs still without their primary domicile lords"

What does this mean? Surely Venus and Mercury respectively rule those signs.

Yes, today Venus and Mercury definitely do rule those two signs. We are looking far into the future for additional rulers of the signs. Humnaity as a whole hasn't yet absorbed Pluto's meaning. (Edgar Cayce said that Pluto had to do with a developing spiritual awareness.) If other planets are out there, they may well be of a finer vibration and won't be visible for hundreds of years. So I was speculating about the future in that statement. (I've read that in earalier ages most people's eyes couldn't percieve the blue in the sky, but saw it as mostly a gray tone. So as our spiritual awareness grows, so is our perception expanded.)

Quote:

Therese: "Taurus and Gemini don't have their own domicile lords as yet, but their lords would be exalted in Aquarius and Leo respectively. These two signs had no exalted planets in the ancient system."

Quote:

Paul: But neither did Sagittarius or Scorpio, so why Aquarius or Leo?

Following the schema in that article, Uranus is exalted in Scorpio and Pluto is exalted in Sagittarius. So two more planets would fill in the exaltation scheme.

Quote:

Therese: "It's intriguing that this ancient Zoroastrian text assigns the remote Artemis to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces, with which all modern astrologers agree, and Pluto to Aries, the suggested sidereal co-lord of Aries"

Quote:

Do you have the original translation without your comments anywhere?

The source is quoted in my article. The quotes are clearly definied in a bold italic font, and my comments are in the regular font.

[There is no house of the Moon, but by sympathy, Leo and Cancer being the houses of the Sun, the Moon is coinhabitant of Cancer](corrupt text restored by Robert Schmidt)
(CCAG 8, 3; 120-122: page 23 of The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek, Project Hindsight, Volume X)_________________http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

I don't believe the zodiacs can be successfully combined. I think it muddies the waters. But a number of western Jyotish astrologers do discuss tropical sun signs with their clients if the client is more comfortable with that zodiac.Komilla Sutton in her Indian Astrology combines the nakshatras with tropical sun signs and their rulerships. To me, this makes no sense and is incorrectly combining symbolism. It may have been the author's purpose to interest more readers in Indian's nakshatras.

But isn't it the case that Indian astrology already combines two conceptionally different zodiacs? The 12 sign zodiac introduced from Greco-Roman astrology and the much older indigenous lunar based Nakshatras?

Clearly some changes took place to fit the 27 Nakshatras in with the 12 sign zodiac. Today the value of each Nakshatra is precisely 13 degrees and 20 minutes when measured from the fixed initial point. However, it appears the Nakshatras were originaly of unequal length in the Vedic period. Moreover, academics concur that the Nakshatras originally began with Krittika in the ancient period centred on the Pleiades star cluster. However, this now forms the third Nakshatra. Several writers have suggested probably motivated by the effects of precession.

There is an interesting connection here to the early Mesopotamian 18 constellation 'path of the Moon' which also had its beginning with marker stars in the Pleiades.

I have been looking at working with the Nakshatras myself but more as a stand alone system. While I use the tropical zodiac I haven't considered combining the two. However, there do appear to be a small minority of Indian astrology practitioners who utilise Indian astrology with the tropical zodiac. I am assuming this includes the Nakshatras too.

One of the best known advocates of this approach is in the west is Ernst Wilhem.

Mark, I cannot accept the basis nor the implications of that assertion.

I didn't give a time frame to when the Nakshatras developed but I generally agree with you that they originated long before hellenistic astrology was introduced to India.

Varune 2 wrote:

Quote:

The previous 3 quotes mark the time when the ashwini nakshatra was at the winter solstice and not the vernal equinox, because this type of year was divided into the solstices, therefore the time frame here is 7000-6000 b.c.

Do you know of any supporting research to back that claim up?

Varuna2 wrote:

Quote:

When we study ancient hindu sources, we should remember it was western scholars (with their own preconceptions and bias) who attributed the dating applied to them, and who even created the fabric upon which we discuss these things.

What makes you think only westerners have preconceptions and bias? I think a far bigger problem today comes from members of the Indian astrological community who seek to impose an exclusively theological world view upon all the evidence. This article by Dieter Koch highlights the problem:

Varuna I was replying to Therese in regards a particular comment she made in regards the Nakshatras and tropical astrology. We have obviously debated the history of the Nakshatras on Skyscript at considerable length before.

Varuna2-If you want another discussion on the history of the Nakshatras I strongly recommend opening a new thread on the new Indian astrology thread. I fear this discussion is already de-railing this existing thread somewhat.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

But isn't it the case that Indian astrology already combines two conceptionally different zodiacs? The 12 sign zodiac introduced from Greco-Roman astrology and the much older indigenous lunar based Nakshatras?

In practice these are not combined in the way that Kimilla Sutton combines them in her book. The Moon is interpreted in the context of its nakshatra. The 27 nakshatra (mansion) lords are used to mark off the planetary periods through life. But in interpretation the lords of signs aren't combined with the lunar mansions.

Quote:

However, it appears the Nakshatras were originaly of unequal length in the Vedic period.

They were not so much of unequal length as limited to specific stars or asterism groups. They had no boundaries.

Quote:

There is an interesting connection here to the early Mesopotamian 18 constellation 'path of the Moon' which also had its beginning with marker stars in the Pleiades.

Yes, the subject of the nakshatras/lunar mansions deserves its own topic heading as a place to explore subjects like this.

Quote:

I have been looking at working with the Nakshatras myself but more as a stand alone system.

This is how they should be used. Also in natal work they apply mainly to the Moon. If you use the Sun's position in a lunar mansion for character, you will get an incorrect reading.

Quote:

One of the best known advocates of this approach is in the west is Ernst Wilhem

This is how they should be used. Also in natal work they apply mainly to the Moon. If you use the Sun's position in a lunar mansion for character, you will get an incorrect reading.

Some western practitioners of Indian astrology seem to be moving away from this. For example, in his book on the Nakshatras, Dennis Harness also advocates looking at the chart ASC and Sun positions through the different mansions.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated